A business goal would be set, announced, and generally greeted with enthusiasm. But then evidence would begin to emerge that it had been an unwise one – and goalodicy would kick in as a response. The negative evidence would be reinterpreted as a reason to invest more effort and resources in pursuit of the goal. And so things would, not surprisingly, go even more wrong…. There is a good case to be made that many of us, and many of the organisations for which we work, would do better to spend less time on goal-setting, and, more generally, to focus with less intensity on planning for how we would like the future to turn out. – Oliver Burkeman

Scott Adams is even more critical of the “best practice” of goal-setting than Burkeman:

Throughout my career I’ve had my antennae up, looking for examples of people who use systems as opposed to goals. In most cases, as far as I can tell, the people who use systems do better. The systems-driven people have found a way to look at the familiar in new and more useful ways. To put it bluntly, goals are for losers. That’s literally true most of the time. For example, if your goal is to lose ten pounds, you will spend every moment until you reach the goal—if you reach it at all—feeling as if you were short of your goal. In other words, goal-oriented people exist in a state of nearly continuous failure that they hope will be temporary. That feeling wears on you. In time, it becomes heavy and uncomfortable… Goal-oriented people exist in a state of continuous pre-success failure at best, and permanent failure at worst if things never work out. – Scott Adams

If you’re a laser-focused, SMART goal-oriented person, you might want to revisit some of the foundational bricks in your worldview in light of what Burkeman and Adams have to say. But then again, neither Burkeman nor Adams are absolutists. They don’t emphatically advise against all goal-setting. They simply suggest considering alternative, less psychically destructive methods of attempting to better our lives (devise/use a system; envision a qualitatively desirable future and move toward it).

You might say every system has a goal, however vague. And that would be true to some extent. And you could say that everyone who pursues a goal has some sort of system to get there, whether it is expressed or not. You could word-glue goals and systems together if you chose. All I’m suggesting is that thinking of goals and systems as very different concepts has power. – Scott Adams

There is plenty of very real research testifying to the fact that the practice (of goal-setting) can be useful. Interpreted sufficiently broadly, setting goals and carrying out plans to achieve them is how many of us spend most of our waking hours. – Oliver Burkeman

The main reason I blog is because it energizes me. I could rationalize my blogging by telling you it increases traffic on Dilbert.com by 10 percent or that it keeps my mind sharp or that I think the world is a better place when there are more ideas in it. But the main truth is that blogging charges me up. It gets me going. I don’t need another reason.

Ding! That’s Ed Zachary why I blog too. I blog for the energy boost. I’m not actively hoping to achieve anything specific when I blog. I just do it… to do it. Every time I click the “Add New Post” button on my WordPress dashboard and I’m presented with an inviting, blank, white canvas, I have no freakin’ idea what goo will get splotched onto it and subsequently launched into the ether.

But wait! Scotty also pens this:

Throughout my career I’ve had my antennae up, looking for examples of people who use systems as opposed to goals. In most cases, as far as I can tell, the people who use systems do better. The systems-driven people have found a way to look at the familiar in new and more useful ways. To put it bluntly, goals are for losers. That’s literally true most of the time. For example, if your goal is to lose ten pounds, you will spend every moment until you reach the goal—if you reach it at all—feeling as if you were short of your goal. In other words, goal-oriented people exist in a state of nearly continuous failure that they hope will be temporary.

W00t! I’m not a “goal-oriented” person either. I never have been and, up until now, I’ve often felt weird as “A Man Without A Country, uh, I mean, Goal“. After all, it’s difficult not to feel weird when you’re surrounded 8 hours a day by lots of goal-oriented people, most of whom auto-expect everybody else to be goal-driven too.

Scott Adams is a rare bird. To me, he’s a dirty rich dude who deserves to be dirty rich. Unlike many dirty rich people, he’s a a creator with a sense of humility. A real gem.

Check out a sampling of the “must have” products that you’ve been waiting to empty your bank account for:

Unbelievably, and joyfully, I constructed this store and populated it with product designs in about six hours. Is that kool or what? However, each “free” storefront seems to only allow 12 designs to be posted for sale.

Here’s what my store dashboard look like at the moment (LOL!!!):

I’m gonna start a sequel, “The Frontal Assault Idiot II” shop, as soon as I finish totaling up my revenues from the debut shop. Don’t hold your breath, cuz it might take awhile to wash the green stank off of my greedy fingers.

Like this:

Merry Christmas and Ho, Ho, Ho! Dear reader, if you don’t want to be negatively influenced today, then please move on and don’t read any further.

Before Dilbert and Scott Adams rocketed to fame and fortune by speaking about the unspeakable, DICsters toiling down in the boiler room at least had hope that the grass was greener on the other side. However, the Dilbert strip has unveiled what many didn’t know prior to its public emergence: the grass most likely isn’t greener “over there“.

Every day, Dilbert and his cohorts drive home the point that dysfunctional corpricracies are as ubiquitous and pervasive as the weeds in your garden. The strip has actually helped CCFs by demotivating DICsters from leaving toxic environments – because now they think that “it’s the same everywhere“. D’oh!

Like this:

…you can have a Dilbertonian conversation with a BM (past or present) like the one below without getting fired? Of course, the elegant genius of Dilbert is that former cubicle-dweller-turned-gazillionaire Scott Adams makes you want to laugh and cry simultaneously.